Doctor X

Lewis does as many have done before him and since him: selectively interpret the texts to find the Jesus he believes in while pretending his process is science.

--J.D.

mark9950

I think that he may know just how inconsistant mans word is and how he changes it,thats all.

We all know man wrote the bible not God,a god or the gods.

Geoff Hudson

But what does the pericope float among? I would suggest alot that is NOT legend as C. S. Lewis clearly recognised and sincerely believed along with thousands of other sincere highly intelligent people past and present - a number of such I would like to keep as my friends. Some of you are crowing too soon.

I am glad that you recognise that C. S. Lewis IS. Perhaps his spirit is looking down.

Geoff

B. H. Manners

Didn't Metacrock do something similar last time he came here? He argued that Historians had ways of proving what was myth and what wasn't but on closer inspection they were just assumptions on the part of the Historians that they had in fact not proved.

I remember it went something like this:

Myths change over time a whole lot while true stories get changed none at all or very little.

When asked to prove this and present who was there to prove such he never could produce any information, only attack us for daring to doubt his scholars.

Ted Hoffman

What exactly does "literary historian" mean?

Sorry to ask but what do all these mean? I can only understand the meaning of p66 and p75 what about the (Greek?) characters etc?

Geoff Hudson

Interestingly, a footnote in the NIV says two early manuscripts have THE prophet, not a prophet in Jn. 7:52 immediately before this "floating pericope" of 7:53 - 8:11. I have maintained that THE prophet was John the Prophet.

Geoff

CX

MSS denoted with a "p" are papyri, those denoted with either hebrew or Greek letters are uncials and those denote with numbers alone are minuscules. They represent varying types of mss progressing chronologically from the early papyri to the uncials (Which is a reference to the type of script) to the minuscules (another type of script).

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hi, Peter,

And of course this would indicate that this passage is very ancient!

As to its exact location, this would be a secondary matter. It clearly floated around, but this is no argument that the passage isn't ancient...

Quote:

Bruce M. Metzger writes, "The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming. . . .

He's blowing smoke...

Quote:

No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage,

Either Metzger is incompetent, or he's out and out crooked! (I don't know which is worse...)

In fact, Augustine of Hippo commented on this passage in some detail, and more than once!

Quote:

and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it." (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, pp. 219-220) Metzger also writes, "Signficantly enough, in many of the witnesses which contain the passage it is marked with asterisks or obeli, indicating that, though the scribes included the account, they were aware that it lacked satisfactory credentials." (Textual Commentary, p. 221) This has been known for centuries. It is Remedial Text Criticism 21. I guess Lewis wasn't there on the day they talked about the pericope adultera.

Well, I don't know who is it that really needs to take "Remedial Text Criticism 21"... perhaps it is Metzger. Or maybe he simply needs to take some lessons in honesty?

This is just part of the incredible deception that's going on now in textual field. Metzger's just engaging in typical Alexandrian propaganda.

There's little doubt that this passage is very ancient. It's included in the Codex Bezae Jn, and in many Old Latin versions of Jn. Which pretty well seals the case. These are 4th century gospel MSS -- as early as any other complete gospel MSS.

So, from this point of view, it's already completely immaterial who comments on this passage, or doesn't comment on this passage...

But, as I say, Augustine _does_ comment on this passage! And this is what he says,

[quote]

http://www.bibleword.org/john10.html

Augustine was aware of the fact that this passage was
missing from many manuscripts. He gave an opinion
explaining why. Here I quote The King James Version
Defended by Edward F. Hills:

"According to Augustine (c. 400), it was this
moralistic objection to the pericope de adultera
which was responsible for its omission in some of
the New Testament manuscripts known to him.
"Certain persons of little faith," he wrote, "or rather
enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest
their wives should be given impunity in sinning,
removed from their manuscripts the Lord's act of
forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if He who had
said 'sin no more' had granted permission to sin."

[unquote; this was the passage from Augustine, De Adult. Conj., ii. 6, 7.]

So what we learn from Augustine is that this passage was _often_ censored by the Christian puritans of his time, for the reasons that he gives!

And I guess this would also help to explain why, in the early canonical period, this passage kept floating around from place to place within the canon -- because all sorts of prudish X-tian moralists were quite unhappy with it (and kept removing it?).

So yes, Lewis is now off the hook, he didn't make any sort of a big interpretative mistake that would qualify him as a "crackpot". Rather, it's Metzger who should be on trial -- either for incompetence or for lying...

These Alexandrian fanatics will not stop at anything in their crusade to discredit Western/Peripheral texts.

That will teach you to trust Metzger the next time, Peter.

Regards,

Yuri.

Ted Hoffman

Thanks CX.

Geoff Hudson

It might pay some of you to look at the text a little more closely:

[ ] Read out
{ } Read in

Chapter 8

JOHN SAYS NOTHING TO THE LAWYERS

(1)But [Jesus] {John} went to the Mount of Olives.

(2)At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered round him, and he sat down to teach them.

(3)The TEACHERS OF THE LAW [and the Pharisees] brought in a woman caught in adultery.

They made her stand before the group

(4)and said to [Jesus] {John}, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.

(5)In the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women.

Now what do you SAY?"

(6)They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But [Jesus] {John} bent down [and started] TO WRITE on the ground with his finger…

(7)[When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them,]

…"If any one of you is without [sin] {a spirit of deceit}, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

(8)[Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.]

(9)At this, [those who heard] {the teachers of the law} began to go away one at a time, the older ones first,
[until only Jesus was left,]
with the woman still standing there.

(10)[Jesus} {John} straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are [they] {THE TEACHERS OF THE LAW}?

Has no-one CONDEMNED you?"

(11)"No-one, sir," she said. "Then neither [do] {does} {I} {the Spirit} CONDEMN you," [Jesus] {John} declared.

"[Go] {Obey} [now] {the Spirit} and [leave] {forsake} your [life] {spirit} of [sin] {deceit}.

*****

John wrote his answer in the dust so that he could not be accused of SAYING what he wrote. The evidence could easily be erased.

It was the teachers of the law who went away. The people and the woman remained with John.

So may be this was a real story after all.

Another important point (that some argue about) is that [Jesus] {John} was literate.

Geoff